D&D 4E Sales Figures Debate

[Kaelik]

@Frank: If it makes you feel better, I apologized to Kaelik once. I learned my lesson.

Pics or it didn't happen

[Stubbazubba]

I'm gonna break forum rules here and say OK, you're right. It looked like Kaelik was saying that this list of graphic sex scenes was necessary because of these consequences, and I explained my argument against that proposition. Looking back, I thought icyshadowlord was making a much more nuanced criticism of the work, and I thought Kaelik's list was something it wasn't. Mea culpa.

From this page.

And looking back it turned out Kaelik never bit my head off and gloated about it as I was expecting. False memories, huh?

[Kaelik]

I'm gonna break forum rules here and say OK, you're right. It looked like Kaelik was saying that this list of graphic sex scenes was necessary because of these consequences, and I explained my argument against that proposition. Looking back, I thought icyshadowlord was making a much more nuanced criticism of the work, and I thought Kaelik's list was something it wasn't. Mea culpa.

From this page.

And looking back it turned out Kaelik never bit my head off and gloated about it as I was expecting. False memories, huh?

Don't worry, I think of you as less of a person for having apologized.

[erik]

Do people on the internet ever apologize for anything? I think you'd have better odds of murdering someone and making buddy-buddy with their surviving family members than you do of getting someone on the internet to agree they might have been wrong.

I do sometimes, but not as often as I should. Sorry everyone. Except I'm not sorry to the irritating cocksuckers I have on ignore. They can eat a bag of dicks.

I searched this forum for my posts where I said 'sorry' and a plurality were of the flavor, "I'm sorry you're so stupid." There's a few where I eat my crow and admit my mental deficits.

[Kaelik]

It appears that for me "I'm sorry . . ." is a idiomatic phrase which could be more literally translated as "I think the words in your last post are approximately gibberish."

[CaptPike]

Okay, Capt. Pike, we know that you FEEL 4E was a success, but do you THINK 4E was a success?

Game On,
fbmf

yes I do,

Okay, perfect. This is consistent with what you said earlier:

Where is this data?

the amazon best seller list, anecdotal evidence enough for me to think it did, but no more.

Emphasis mine. But then you admit that the AMAZON list is not good data (I'll quote you saying so below), so since that was your only "data", and you've now discounted it, you have no data. Therefore, you have a FEELING that 4E did well, but you don't THINK 4E did well, by your own definitions.

Do I have that right?

I am sorry you are right, by my own logic amazon would not be enough data, I have a feeling it would be a better indicator then online gaming but that is all it is.

Why do people keep getting confused by this? I said I THINK it did, that means I think it is probably via limited possibility unreliable data. were this not the case I would have said I KNOW.

When I said THINK that means I do not KNOW. when I say FEEL that means I have no data, just like everyone else who knows what those words mean.

My experience has been that people who claim that there is no data, therefore we should believe their prejudices - are not useful people to debate. This is not limited to the subject of RPG sales.

I stand by my earlier comment. People like this are just infuriating to deal with whether they're living in denial on climate change or anti-vaxxers or, apparently, 4e true believers.

Do you think like this all the time? [X person] thinks [uncommon or unpopular idea] and so must be either insane or stupid. I of course feel no need use any evidence or anything, everyone knows that once enough people believe something that makes it true.

The number of people who believe something has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how true or untrue it is.

How many of you have done any real research into the data for sides you do you not support? or do you trust everyone to not lie to you about anything?

Pike, have you read the studies?

On average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that we lack enough data to plot really term trends. it would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

We do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

No, you don't know these things. Just because you are ignorant does not mean other people are. There are actual scientists who have published piles and piles of data on climate change, so go do some actual research and educate yourself.

And if you can't understand it, then you can continue on being ignorant or you can accept the word of experts in the field. That's the entire point of having specialists in the first place: you can't know everything, so at some point you have to take what someone says on authority because they are an expert at that thing. Or do you argue with your doctor over everything he tells you?

And honestly even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries some it would not. That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And that cost is too high, if global warming is true I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

Nice perfect solution fallacy, asshole. Or we could do something instead of nothing and have even more time to find a permanent fix. Crowing that since we can't perfectly fix it now we shouldn't bother doing anything is fucking insane and you are an actual crazy person for thinking it.

Doing anything major would have too much cost when we do not and can not know if will even help. again, we do not know if what is happening is part of a long term trend, nor does anyone else because we do not have thousands of years of global records. Maybe its perfectly normal, and even a good thing in the long run (like a forest fire) and in 100 years the average temperature will dip lower then it was 50 years ago.

The earth is not some perfect static system that never changed until the industrial revolution, it changed all the time even in recorded history in major ways that we know could not be caused by humans. so why is it THIS time it MUST be our fault even though before it was not?

Ever notice how 4rries never apologize?

Remember a few pages back, when Souran was calling everyone a liar for thinking that 4e was outsold by 3rd edition by an order of magnitude? People dropped science on his ass, and he got owned hard, but he never said he was sorry. He crawled away with his tail between his legs, but he didn't actually apologize to anyone, even though he way overstepped the most generous limits of polite or even sane behavior. Rather ironic, considering his signature.

But more generally, remember how 4rries used to constantly copy/paste snippets of my statements about 4th edition D&D into their little pay-wall protected shit hole and then stroke themselves off about how funny it was that I was going to be proved wrong some day? Remember how they constantly insulted me for several years, and chortled and gloated about how history was going to crush me and I was going to be made to come crawling back to them to apologize for being so wrong about 4th edition?

How come none of those assholes ever apologize to me? I mean, I was right the whole time. And they were wrong. The whole time. And all the insults, all the cyberstalking, all the harassment was all in the service of an ideology which was simply factually incorrect. 4th edition did not take over gaming, and it never will. The fucking edition crashed and burned even faster than I said it would. The pessimistic predictions I made that they kept insulting me for and holding in reserve so I couldn't call take-backsies on... weren't pessimistic enough. Where are the shitheads like Krakatoa and Pinniped and Darwinsim now? Why aren't they here to eat their fucking crow?

-Username17

I feel obligated to point to your use of the "perfect company" fallacy again. The fact some unknown number of people at Wotc thought 4e was doing bad enough to change direction then pull it means NOTHING with regards to how popular it was, it MIGHT mean you are right, but you can not know that so claiming you do is nothing more then yet another lie.

Is it a highly probable you are right? sure I will grant that, but you can not know that and claiming that you KNOW that 4e failed because of the actions of Wotc is wrong just as me claiming that I know it succeeded because they published a PHB2. The data provided is not enough to KNOW that.

To think that sure, but not to know it.

EDIT: I am NOT saying that I know that 4e was a huge success, I am saying that we do not have enough data to know, I personally THINK It was but that does not matter because that is what I THINK not what I know.

[deaddmwalking]

Why do people keep getting confused by this? I said I THINK it did, that means I think it is probably via limited possibility unreliable data. were this not the case I would have said I KNOW.

When I said THINK that means I do not KNOW. when I say FEEL that means I have no data, just like everyone else who knows what those words mean.

I've fixed these for you:

I thinkOn average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that I think we lack enough data to plot really term trends. I thinkit would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

I thinkWe do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

And honestly I think even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life I think its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous I think the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. I think This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries I think some it would not. I think That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And I think that cost is too high, if global warming is true I think I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

I think Doing anything major would have too much cost whenI think we do not and can not know if will even help. again, I think we do not know if what is happening is part of a long term trend, I thinknor does anyone else because I think we do not have thousands of years of global records. I think Maybe its perfectly normal, and I think even a good thing in the long run (like a forest fire) and in 100 years the average temperature will dip lower then it was 50 years ago.

You didn't specify with those points if you think or if you know. Since it's so important to you, you should specify.

And it strikes me that since you can't know if there is something you don't know, you can make a ludicrous claim. It turns out we have billions of years of climate data, some of it very clear. We have thousands of years of very, very good data. We have hundreds of years of written records as well. Deducing climate without direct measurement is something people do.

Geologic Temperature Record

Have you ever seen War Games. It's a movie from 1983. At the risk of spoiling a 32 year old movie, the computer is going to launch a nuclear war against Russia because it doesn't understand that is a 'no win' situation. Calculating the 'no win' using nuclear warheads would take too long, so the protagonist teaches the computer Tic-Tac-Toe. The computer learns that a 'no-win' scenario happens every time if both parties are fully aware.

I think you would benefit from playing Sudoku for similar reasons. You'll learn that it is possible to deduce the presence (or absence) of a particular number based on the evidence you have. You don't have to say 'I can't know whether this is a 2 or a 5 here' - you can instead say 'since this must be a six, and this row must have a 5, the 2 will go there'.

PS - I know 4e was a failure. I also think it was a failure. I don't understand why you wouldn't claim to think something that you know. In this case, I know why 4e was a failure, but I only think I know the reasons (of which there are many). I do know some of the factors, but I don't know how important each individual factor was to the total failure that was 4e. But oh, what a failure it was!

[CaptPike]

Why do people keep getting confused by this? I said I THINK it did, that means I think it is probably via limited possibility unreliable data. were this not the case I would have said I KNOW.

When I said THINK that means I do not KNOW. when I say FEEL that means I have no data, just like everyone else who knows what those words mean.

I've fixed these for you:

I thinkOn average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that I think we lack enough data to plot really term trends. I thinkit would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

I thinkWe do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

And honestly I think even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life I think its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous I think the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. I think This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries I think some it would not. I think That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And I think that cost is too high, if global warming is true I think I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

I think Doing anything major would have too much cost whenI think we do not and can not know if will even help. again, I think we do not know if what is happening is part of a long term trend, I thinknor does anyone else because I think we do not have thousands of years of global records. I think Maybe its perfectly normal, and I think even a good thing in the long run (like a forest fire) and in 100 years the average temperature will dip lower then it was 50 years ago.

You didn't specify with those points if you think or if you know. Since it's so important to you, you should specify.

And it strikes me that since you can't know if there is something you don't know, you can make a ludicrous claim. It turns out we have billions of years of climate data, some of it very clear. We have thousands of years of very, very good data. We have hundreds of years of written records as well. Deducing climate without direct measurement is something people do.

Geologic Temperature Record

Have you ever seen War Games. It's a movie from 1983. At the risk of spoiling a 32 year old movie, the computer is going to launch a nuclear war against Russia because it doesn't understand that is a 'no win' situation. Calculating the 'no win' using nuclear warheads would take too long, so the protagonist teaches the computer Tic-Tac-Toe. The computer learns that a 'no-win' scenario happens every time if both parties are fully aware.

I think you would benefit from playing Sudoku for similar reasons. You'll learn that it is possible to deduce the presence (or absence) of a particular number based on the evidence you have. You don't have to say 'I can't know whether this is a 2 or a 5 here' - you can instead say 'since this must be a six, and this row must have a 5, the 2 will go there'.

PS - I know 4e was a failure. I also think it was a failure. I don't understand why you wouldn't claim to think something that you know. In this case, I know why 4e was a failure, but I only think I know the reasons (of which there are many). I do know some of the factors, but I don't know how important each individual factor was to the total failure that was 4e. But oh, what a failure it was!

if you know something you also think it, the reverse is not always true. That is why you should never say you think something when you know it.

The problem is that we need to know how much we are missing, if for example we KNEW beyond reasonable doubt what the order of magnitude of DDI was, same for pathfinder sales (including their online stuff) then we could fill in the blanks and have a good idea.

We do not know that, all we know is that 4e sold at least X amount, and we have no real data on what pathfinder sold for the same period (no I do not care what 3e sold, markets changed enough that that data is not useful in this context). Although we could make some good guesses on that. That is not enough.

[CaptPike]

please do not lie to people, let along using my name to do so

I KNOWOn average the temperature is rising slightly, that is not what I dispute.

Some yes, the problem is that I KNOW we lack enough data to plot really term trends. I KNOWit would be like if you only had the weather data for Texas for November and nothing else about the earth's data and were concerned because you plotted that you would be dead by May from the temperature dropping.

I KNOWWe do not know what is causing it, nor do we know if it is really dangerous to us.

it is a fact the average temp has been rising by a very very small amount.

We DO lack the data to rule out that this is a long term trend, its just that people like to see patterns in things and many people do not know when to admit they lack the data to form a conclusion.

And honestly I think even if you accept that we are at fault, that it is very harmful to human life I think its not like we could or should do what would be needed to fix it. Were you to accept the previous I KNOW the only way to really fix it would be to have carbon taxes for the entire planet, and given this could cause very bad economical conditions I find it hard to believe everyone would do so willingly. I KNOW This would mean you would have to enforce it, while non-force could work for many countries I think some it would not. I think That means you would need a global goverment with the power to use force to enforce laws to stop global warming. And I KNOW that cost is too high, if global warming is true I KNOW I would much rather find a way to fix it then go to war over carbon in the air.

please either say why my facts are wrong, or why my logic is wrong anything else simply points to you using groupthink.

I think Doing anything major would have too much cost whenI KNOW we do not and can not know if will even help. again, I KNOW we do not know if what is happening is part of a long term trend, I thinknor does anyone else because I KNOW we do not have thousands of years of global records. I think Maybe its perfectly normal, and I think even a good thing in the long run (like a forest fire) and in 100 years the average temperature will dip lower then it was 50 years ago.

really? you doubt the idea that we lack thousands of years of global records? out of curiosity what was the average temperature of texas on march first 405 AD?

[deaddmwalking]

really? you doubt the idea that we lack thousands of years of global records? out of curiosity what was the average temperature of texas on march first 405 AD?

This question shows a profound lack of understanding of 'average temperature'.

What is the 'average temperature of Texas on March 1st 2015'? Don't worry, I'll be happy to wait for your response.

[CaptPike]

really? you doubt the idea that we lack thousands of years of global records? out of curiosity what was the average temperature of texas on march first 405 AD?

This question shows a profound lack of understanding of 'average temperature'.

What is the 'average temperature of Texas on March 1st 2015'? Don't worry, I'll be happy to wait for your response.

Right, so rather then telling me HOW I am wrong you just said I was? stroke your ego much?

Do you not understand? we HAVE records for Texas for 2015, we do not for 405.

Yes we have geological stuff, even have some records that go back a long time in some places but it is not enough, nor would such records be as good as what we have today.

[tussock]

so why is it THIS time it MUST be our fault even though before it was not?

Because ALL OF SCIENCE agrees that it is, and that this warming event is essentially unique in it's rate of change.

CO2, which humanity produces by burning fossil fuels, at a rate not seen for at least hundreds of millions of years (because we do have climate records going back a very long time indeed) is a greenhouse gas. This means that thanks to basic quantum mechanical effects of random emission it slows the escape of heat from the surface to space. It cannot do otherwise, people have known this for over a century, people predicted coal burning would eventually raise the earth's temperature by greenhouse effects in the 19th century, it's just that fucking obvious.

This means the earth MUST have a higher average temperature to reach equilibrium with solar forcing, because of what we are doing. The CO2 being a gas with an atmospheric half life of some tens of thousands of years, this is not going to go away on its own. We can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and we do, and it's increasing there at a rate matching our burning of fossil fuels.

If the earth was not warming, and it is warming, but if it were not: there would have to be some other massive rapid cooling event going on at the same time, like the eruption of a super-volcano, impact of a very large meteor, or a global thermonuclear war. These things have not happened, the temperature is not stable and will not stabilise for a long time.


It's not even the warmer earth that's the biggest problem, though it is in itself the greatest threat civilisation has ever faced due to the increased energy available to extreme weather phenomena, aside from the bigger threat of the rate of change. The rapid collapse of the Amazon and most other forests on earth is on the cards, the failure and collapse of reef systems, the extra erosion power of rapidly rising seas, mass extinctions from islanding effects on almost all land, lake, and river species, and most ocean species, across a time frame several orders of magnitude faster than the worst mass extinctions on record.

There is already evidence of limited releases of methane from the long-frozen north. Deeper stores of methane are immense, and sufficiently fast warming will release them all, which would put the wet bulb temperature of the entire planet above the capacity of multi-cellular life to survive it. It's possible for us to wipe out enough oceanic species through warming and acidification that nutrients build up and hydrogen sulfide production wipes out most life on earth instead. We're not at those points yet, probably, but we do need to stop burning coal long before we run out of coal to burn, or it will kill almost everything. This is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced, and you are suggesting we not concern ourselves with it just in case all of science is wrong.


So on ignore you go.

[CaptPike]

so why is it THIS time it MUST be our fault even though before it was not?

Because ALL OF SCIENCE agrees that it is, and that this warming event is essentially unique in it's rate of change.

CO2, which humanity produces by burning fossil fuels, at a rate not seen for at least hundreds of millions of years (because we do have climate records going back a very long time indeed) is a greenhouse gas. This means that thanks to basic quantum mechanical effects of random emission it slows the escape of heat from the surface to space. It cannot do otherwise, people have known this for over a century, people predicted coal burning would eventually raise the earth's temperature by greenhouse effects in the 19th century, it's just that fucking obvious.

This means the earth MUST have a higher average temperature to reach equilibrium with solar forcing, because of what we are doing. The CO2 being a gas with an atmospheric half life of some tens of thousands of years, this is not going to go away on its own. We can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and we do, and it's increasing there at a rate matching our burning of fossil fuels.

If the earth was not warming, and it is warming, but if it were not: there would have to be some other massive rapid cooling event going on at the same time, like the eruption of a super-volcano, impact of a very large meteor, or a global thermonuclear war. These things have not happened, the temperature is not stable and will not stabilise for a long time.


It's not even the warmer earth that's the biggest problem, though it is in itself the greatest threat civilisation has ever faced due to the increased energy available to extreme weather phenomena, aside from the bigger threat of the rate of change. The rapid collapse of the Amazon and most other forests on earth is on the cards, the failure and collapse of reef systems, the extra erosion power of rapidly rising seas, mass extinctions from islanding effects on almost all land, lake, and river species, and most ocean species, across a time frame several orders of magnitude faster than the worst mass extinctions on record.

There is already evidence of limited releases of methane from the long-frozen north. Deeper stores of methane are immense, and sufficiently fast warming will release them all, which would put the wet bulb temperature of the entire planet above the capacity of multi-cellular life to survive it. It's possible for us to wipe out enough oceanic species through warming and acidification that nutrients build up and hydrogen sulfide production wipes out most life on earth instead. We're not at those points yet, probably, but we do need to stop burning coal long before we run out of coal to burn, or it will kill almost everything. This is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced, and you are suggesting we not concern ourselves with it just in case all of science is wrong.


So on ignore you go.

Unique in our experience maybe, but what does that mean? that in the last 300 or so years of this planets millions of years it has not happened?

What would you have us do? go to war to stop carbon going into the air because that is what it will take if the other option is starting a world wide depression.


On a related note can I get of a list of the local groupthink ideas? so I know what things you all agree with and will not tolerate variance of? after all if politely disagreeing with you all about something is enough to have you act like this I think I need a guide to tell me what random things I can't disagree with.

[Gnorman]

I think that you will find the collective opinions of the Denners to vary wildly, except for one unifying factor: their ideas will be at least somewhat intellectually defensible.

Yours are not.

[CaptPike]

I think that you will find the collective opinions of the Denners to vary wildly, except for one unifying factor: their ideas will be at least somewhat intellectually defensible.

Yours are not.

really? I find that hard to believe, or is it that you all are forcing out everyone who disagrees with you? I find that much easier to believe.

After all even after I pointed out that we lack an unknown about of data for 4e sales, and simply say that we do not KNOW that it failed or anything really you all start attacking me and saying I MUST be wrong, because even though what we are missing is unknown it can't point to anything that could ever disagree with you.

And rather then accepting that, the simple fact THAT WE DO NOT KNOW you all start ignoring me and attacking me.

when I say that 300 years (ish) of records is not enough to predict the behavior of anything that is millions of years old you assume I am wrong, and hardly even both to defend yourself. You just assume that everyone else is right, and that the more people that believe something the more correct it is.

so again I ask for that list, because otherwise I can't post anything without being attacked. I tend to think about my views, so they are not all popular, so I need to know the ones that will not "offend" you all (not that I accept the idea of offending someone as something to avoid)

[Whipstitch]

What would you have us do? go to war to stop carbon going into the air because that is what it will take if the other option is starting a world wide depression.

Nice false dichotomy you got there. It's actually pretty routine for the estimated cost of significant emission reduction to come in at surprisingly affordable prices in terms of global or even national economics. Such programs just get derided anyway because climate change deniers believe they amount to fraud.

[MGuy]

Um Pike, I have no idea how you're confused about why people are making fun of you. I'd suggest going back and actually reading the parts where people tell you straight up why and how you're an idiot.

[CaptPike]

Um Pike, I have no idea how you're confused about why people are making fun of you. I'd suggest going back and actually reading the parts where people tell you straight up why and how you're an idiot.

As a reasonable adult when someone has a view I disagree with I tell them why, using my reasoning and/or facts to prove it.

I do NOT call them an idiot because they disagree with me, I do NOT just ignore them because they disagree with me. If they disagree with me for good reasons that I disagree with (say they are putting too much emphasis on a source I consider to be not reliable) I accept this. I do not call them an idiot for this.

Is this wrong? more then a few times you all have simply dismissed something I said not becuase of my reasoning, not because of my facts but for no reason whatsoever.

[MGuy]

Well, that's all well and good. People aren't calling you and idiot 'just' because they disagree with you. They are calling you an idiot because you are being willfully ignorant.

[CaptPike]

Well, that's all well and good. People aren't calling you and idiot 'just' because they disagree with you. They are calling you an idiot because you are being willfully ignorant.

Then they should point out WHY, unless of course they just like to feel smart by insulting people.

[MGuy]

Well, that's all well and good. People aren't calling you and idiot 'just' because they disagree with you. They are calling you an idiot because you are being willfully ignorant.

Then they should point out WHY, unless of course they just like to feel smart by insulting people.

And as I said, people have. In great detail. Repeatedly. Each time you just dismiss whatever it is they've said and act as if people are misunderstanding you. No one misunderstands you. That's the funny part. Everyone here knows your position. You're the only one who doesn't seem to know what is going on.

[CaptPike]

Well, that's all well and good. People aren't calling you and idiot 'just' because they disagree with you. They are calling you an idiot because you are being willfully ignorant.

Then they should point out WHY, unless of course they just like to feel smart by insulting people.

And as I said, people have. In great detail. Repeatedly. Each time you just dismiss whatever it is they've said and act as if people are misunderstanding you. No one misunderstands you. That's the funny part. Everyone here knows your position. You're the only one who doesn't seem to know what is going on.

They point it a small portion of what is needed, think its enough and then complain when I point that out.

That of course is when they do not just assume that no one lies and that companies act only perfectly.

I am still waiting for the groupthink list, so I know what you all think and what you consider "stupid" to think even if logic and reason point elsewhere.

[MGuy]

Yes, we all have seen your ole song and dance. As I said, no one is confused, but more importantly, no one is impressed by it. Again, people have told you why and you've casually dismissed it.

[CaptPike]

Yes, we all have seen your ole song and dance. As I said, no one is confused, but more importantly, no one is impressed by it. Again, people have told you why and you've casually dismissed it.

As opposed to what? having all my opinions formed in a vacuum that can easily be changed by facts found anywhere?

If I believe something that is because I have a good reason to do so (unlike say those here who think things are true just cause alot of people think it is true). That means you need to do more then point at things I know to prove me wrong.

[CaptPike]

I am serious about that list, I want a way to post here without everything getting derailed when I point out, what are to me, obvious problems.

I know for example that when someone assumes that a company is acting perfectly I should NOT point out that they are making a mistake because humans are not perfect.

I also know that 4e failed, no it does not matter that we lack the data for pathfinder so we have no context for 4e, and no it does not matter that we lack DDI data.

I also know that even though we lack what we would need to know that we caused global warming we caused it, it is harmful, and we MUST fix it regardless of cost.

if I question any of these I will be called an idiot and not taken seriously regardless of my logic am I missing anything?